Appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening: Appraisal of evidence by experts

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 177-182

  Bridevaux, Isabelle Peytremann ^a,b   Silaghi, Anne Melody ^a   Vader, John Paul ^a   Froehlich, Florian ^a,c   Gonvers, Jean Jacques ^a   Burnand, Bernard ^a  

^a LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer; Concordance; Level of evidence; RAND appropriateness method; Weighted kappa

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; EUROPE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY; HUMAN; KAPPA STATISTICS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; CONSENSUS; ENDOSCOPY, GASTROINTESTINAL; EUROPE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MASS SCREENING; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 33745700720     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: 14643677     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: Iii-iv, 1-72.
2. AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: The AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 18-23.
3. Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care 2001; 39: 1146-1154.
4. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches. The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 2004; 4: 38.
5. Burgers JS, Bailey JV, Klazinga NS, Van Der Bij AK, Grol R, Feder G. Inside guidelines: Comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 1933-1939.
6. Hart RG, Bailey RD. An assessment of guidelines for prevention of ischemic stroke. Neurology 2002; 59: 977-982.
7. Vogel N, Burnand B, Vial Y, Ruiz J, Paccaud F, Hohlfeld P. Screening for gestational diabetes: Variations in guidelines. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000; 91: 29-36.
8. Thomson R, McElroy H, Sudlow M. Guidelines on anticoagulant treatment in atrial fibrillation in Great Britain: Variation in content and implications for treatment. Br Med J 1998; 316: 509-513.
9. Fahey TP, Peters TJ. What constitutes controlled hypertension? Patient based comparison of hypertension guidelines. Br Med J 1996; 313: 93-96.
10. Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A, Solomon DH, Kosecoff J, Park RE. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1986; 2: 53-63.
11. Nicollier-Fahrni A, Vader JP, Froehlich F, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B. Development of appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy: Comparison between a standardized expert panel and an evidence-based medicine approach. Int J Qual Health Care 2003; 15: 15-22.
12. Vader JP, Burnand B, Froehlich F, Dubois RW, Bochud M, Gonvers JJ. The European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): projects and methods. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 572-578.
13. Froehlich F, Larequi-Lauber T, Gonvers JJ, Dubois RW, Burnand B, Vader JP. 11. Appropriateness of colonoscopy: Inflammatory bowel disease. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 647-653.
14. Bochud M, Burnand B, Froehlich F, Dubois RW, Vader JP, Gonvers JJ. 12. Appropriateness of colonoscopy: Surveillance after polypectomy. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 654-663.
15. Bochud M, Burnand B, Froehlich F, Dubois RW, Vader JP, Gonvers JJ. 13. Appropriateness of colonoscopy: Surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 664-672.
16. Burnand B, Bochud M, Froehlich F, Dubois RW, Vader JP, Gonvers JJ. 14. Appropriateness of colonoscopy: Screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic individuals. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 673-683.
17. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ et al. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXV. EvidencP-based medicine: principles for applying the users' guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 2000; 284: 1290-1296.
18. Koepsell TD, Weiss NS. Epidemiologic Methods. Studying the Occurrence of Illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
19. Vader JP, Froehlich F, Dubois RW et al. European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): Conclusion and WWW site. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 687-694.
20. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 2004; 328: 1490.
21. Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: Pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res 2005; 5: 25.
22. Rosenbloom ST, Giuse NB, Jerome RN, Blackford JU. Providing evidence-based answers to complex clinical questions: Evaluating the consistency of article selection. Acad Med 2005; 80: 109-114.
23. Hicks NR. Some observations on attempts to measure appropriateness of care. Br Med J 1994; 309: 730-733.
24. Phelps CE. The methodologic foundations of studies of the appropriateness of medical care. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1241-1245.
25. Rubenfeld GD. Understanding why we agree on the evidence but disagree on the medicine. Respir Care 2001; 46: 1442-1449.
26. Burnand B, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V et al. Use, appropriateness and diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopy for early colorectal cancer case-finding in asymptomatic patients: An international observational study (epage). Gastrointest Endosc (in press).
27. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, Mura G, Liberati A. Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: The need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 2000; 355: 103-106.
28. Fraser GM, Pilpel D, Kosecoff J, Brook RH. Effect of panel composition on appropriateness ratings. Int J Qual Health Care 1994; 6: 251-255.